Valuing Improvements in The Water Rights System in South Africa: A Contingent Ranking Approach<sup>1</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Speelman, Stijn, Stefano Farolfi, Aymen Frija, and Guido Van Huylenbroeck, 2010. Valuing Improvements in the Water Rights System in South Africa: A Contingent Ranking Approach. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 46(6):1133–1144. DOI: 10.1111/j.1752‐1688.2010.00480.x Abstract: In the context of increasing water scarcity, understanding is growing that irrigation water rights are important and that a lack of an effective water rights system constitutes a major reason for inefficient water management. This study carried out a contingent ranking experiment to study how smallholder irrigators in South Africa would value potential changes in water rights. Three specific dimensions of water rights, relevant for the South African case, are considered: duration, quality of title, and transferability. Results indicate that smallholder irrigators are prepared to pay considerably higher water prices if improvements are made in the water rights system. This implies that the proposed interventions in the water rights system would improve the efficiency and productivity of the small‐scale irrigation sector. The increased willingness to pay could furthermore also assist the South African government to reach the objective of increased cost recovery.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".